From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jun 7 15: 4: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from coredump.lovett.com (hub.lovett.com [216.60.121.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF6937B7F4; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:04:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from ade by coredump.lovett.com with local (Exim 3.14 #1) id 12znvU-0000Im-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:03:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:03:52 -0500 From: Ade Lovett To: Alexander Langer Cc: David O'Brien , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patches/ handling Message-ID: <20000607170352.F353@FreeBSD.org> References: <20000605184259.A21736@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607090533.D44242@FreeBSD.org> <20000607091405.A55268@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607202517.D15229@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000607134522.A353@FreeBSD.org> <20000607205859.A16247@cichlids.cichlids.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000607205859.A16247@cichlids.cichlids.com>; from alex@big.endian.de on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:58:59PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:58:59PM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: > Not at the moment. > But I believe I'm talking against a wall or something: > > ********************************************************************** > * THERE IS ALREADY THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A SEPERATE ARCH/OPSYS * > * PATCHDIR. > > [snip] Ok. Deep breath. 1. I'm fully aware that bsd.port.mk provides the capability for patches. directories. 2. I'm also fully aware that you're trying to extend this capability into what you perceive to be a useful manner. However, I believe that (1) is fundamentally flawed, since it provides nothing that well-written patches, in a single directory, cannot also do. So far, we have discussed two types of patches, which can be handled by either #ifdef's, or uname -m. If (and I have yet to see any evidence that this is true) we ever come across something that cannot be handled in this manner then: (a) We either whack the software, or FreeBSD, into shape, to allow simple "what architecture am I?" decisions to work (b) we fall back to the EXTRA_PATCHES, surrounded by .if constructs in the port Makefile (c) I'll send you some virtual beers, or should we ever meet in person, the drinks will be on me. Thus, in the general case, patches. is not needed, and in the special cases above (should there ever be any), there are other options for workarounds. Therefore, I'm suggesting that ALL support for patches. be removed from bsd.port.mk -- by definition, that includes your extensions. To a certain extent we (FreeBSD porters) have had it pretty easy up until around about now, only having to deal with one underlying architecture. Certainly, for x86, there can be no question that we have the most effective ports/packages tree currently available. That needs to change, however, with the introduction of the Alpha port, and a few more waiting in the wings (I'm already starting to have nightmares about making GNOME work on them :) -- we have to be very, very, careful about the choices we make on how to handle multiple architectures, since once the ball is in motion, it's going to be very messy to change it later on. So far, the discussion has been somewhat polarized, but I think we can work with what's been said so far, get a few more people involved here (wake up, ye porters of the Seventh Seal!), and then just get on with it. It's obvious that David and I are in a similar frame of mind, preferring a single directory, with patches (re)written in an architecture-dependent manner. That's 2 votes. We have your suggestion, which is to extend the present scheme as provided by bsd.port.mk. That's 1 vote. We have the status-quo option. No votes, yet. Anyone else want to speak up? Will? Jim? Max? Satoshi? > So if not, you're going to provide a patch that completely removes the > possibilty of having different patch dirs? That's the easy bit, which will take about a minute to do, should we go for that option. However, in this case, the issue is deep enough that it needs to be resolved before patches are made up. -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message